Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YAQOOB VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Fahim Ahmed SiddiquiMuhammad Yaseen M. Khaskheli
2022 Y L R Note 184 [Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)] Before Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J MUHAMMAD YAQOOB---Applicant Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Bail Application Nos. S-336 and 337 of 2020, decided on 21st May, 2020. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Breach of contract---Further inquiry---Scope---Accused was alleged to have issued three cheques which were dishonored on presentation---Accused had entered into an agreement in the year 2019 regarding some orchid for harvesting and marketing different fruits for a period of three years; he had paid the amount for the first year and some amount for second year but he could not pay the remaining amount for subsequent period and dishonoured cheques pertained to that unpaid amount---Contention of accused that the date of agreement was tampered with was substantiated from the fact that agreement was shown to be executed in the year 2019 while some of the cheques were shown to be handed over to the complainant having dates of the years 2017 and 2018---Business relation between the parties was admitted regarding which an admitted agreement was also available on record and it appeared that the matter was a case of breach of contract---Complainant had not filed a civil suit for rendition/ settlement of accounts---Maximum punishment in the present case was three years, as such, it did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Yaseen M. Khaskheli for Applicant. Ms. Safa Hisbani, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Haji Khan Hingorjo for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 19th May, 2020. ORDER
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.---Since in both the captioned bail applications, the applicant Muhammad Yaqoob is involved in the similar nature cases, therefore, this order will suffice to dispose of both the bail applications. The B.A. No. 336/2020 is initiated on the basis of FIR No.02/2020 while B.A. No.337/2020 pertains to FIR No.86/2019. Both the FIRs were lodged at Police Station Jhol under section 489-F, P.P.C. regarding dishonouring of three cheques, one cheque amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- (FIR No.86/2019) and two cheques for Rs.30,00,000/- each (FIR No.02/2020). 2. Heard arguments and perused record. After hearing and perusal of record as well as citations relied, I have observed as under:- i) The allegations against the applicant are that he entered into an agreement dated 4th January, 2019 regarding some orchid for harvesting and marketing different fruits for a period of three years. As per agreement, first year the applicant has to pay an amount of Rs. 66,00,000/- which was enhanced to Rs.75,00,000/- second year and then Rs. 90,00,000/- for third year. ii) Per FIR, the applicant has paid the amount for first year and some amount for second year but he could. not pay the remaining amount for subsequent period. Allegedly, the said cheques pertain to that unpaid amount. iii) The counsel for the applicant has taken plea of tampering in the date of agreement. Such plea of applicant is substantiated from the fact that the agreement is showing to be executed in the year 2019 while some of the cheques shown to be handed over to the complaint having dates of the years 2017 and 2018. iv) It is an astonishing that if the agreement was executed in the year 2019 then why the complainant accepted the cheques of previous dates. v) The business relationship is admitted and monitory transaction in respect of business relationship is also admitted, and this aspect of the case needs further probe. vi) The applicant claims differences regarding the alleged business transaction and also claims that he left the orchid sometime in the second year. The counsel for the complainant and complainant present in court admit that the applicant's staff is no more available in garden. vii) The applicant counsel claims that the cheques were given as surety and during the first and second period of agreement, the applicant has paid considerable amount as per terms and condition. viii) The business relations between the parties are admitted regarding which an admitted agreement is also available in the record. It appears that the present matter is a case of breach of contract. ix) Although, huge amount of the cheques is involved while it may be a case of breach of contract. The complainant is in possession of cheques but on a query, the counsel for complainant admits that no civil suit for rendition/settlement of accounts as well as in summary jurisdiction of District Court was filed. x) The maximum punishment in the present case is three years, as such, it does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and keeping the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose and would amount to punishment before conviction, which is not permissible under the criminal jurisprudence especially when instant matter involves the tampering in the date of agreement by the complainant and denial by the adverse party. For such offences rule is bail and refusal is exception; in the present case, no exceptional circumstances for refusal of bail are in existence. 3. In view of the above observation, it is my considered view that a case of bail has been made out in favour of the applicant, as such, he is entitled to post-arrest bail in the instant case. 4. Resultantly, the applicant was admitted to bail subject to furnishing the solvent surety of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees two million) and PR bond in the like amount separately in each crime, to the entire satisfaction of the trial Court through my short order dated 19.05.2020 and these are the reasons for the same. 5. Before parting, I would like to make it clear that if the applicant misuses the benefit of bail in any manner, then the trial Court is fully authorised to take every .action against the applicant _and his surety including cancellation of bail without making a reference to this Court. SA/M-129/Sindh Bail granted.